bumby

39 ms·

391.
by bumby 2y ago
We absolutely should expect safety critical software to mitigate risk. The idea of “welp, the software is confused so just toss it back to a human” is a cop-out in risk mitigation. At the most generous, it constitutes an “administrative” co
392.
by bumby 2y ago
It almost belies a need for some sort of standardized testing as well. Self-reporting seems like a weak point that can be gamed. To your point about luddites, that’s why I think it’s erroneous to use “as good as a human” as the metric. It w
393.
by bumby 2y ago
If Tesla is Level 2, that link doesn’t support the OPs point about “all” incidents, but rather only those involved in a fatality, hospital treatment, airbag deployment, or towed vehicle. Am I reading that link correctly?
394.
by bumby 2y ago
Counter perspective: you deflect instead of answering direct questions, which is more like talking at people instead of having dialogue.
395.
by bumby 2y ago
Transformational experience colors the way we see the world because it literally changes our psychology. If you haven’t gone through a particular transformational experience, you are just speculating. It’s like asking, “could you be happy i
396.
by bumby 2y ago
Do you have children? That was a prerequisite for the question. If you do, it implies you don’t consider the relationship with your children either meaningful or beneficial, which says…a lot.
397.
by bumby 2y ago
> 99% of situations people are directly responsible for their own situation. This seems to be a flawed mental model in itself. At the very least, you should elaborate on your definition of empathy. Do you think cognitive empathy is bad?
398.
by bumby 2y ago
Because we are inherently social creatures. It’s arguably what allowed us to move to the top of the animal hierarchy. Consider this: if you were to ask a parent “would you rather your child grow up to be wildly intelligent but have sociopat
399.
by bumby 2y ago
To steal a quote from The Good Place , “This is why everyone hates moral philosophy professors”
400.
by bumby 2y ago
Isn’t rationalism (as discussed above) more closely related to utilitarianism? Thus rationalism is more of a consequentialist framework than a deontological one?
401.
by bumby 2y ago
Jobs is not the same as production. Many of the jobs are lost due to automation. If you bring manufacturing back to the US you’ll be “hiring” a lot more robuts than humans.
402.
by bumby 2y ago
Why do you think that is? I’m wondering if the shared sacrifice of WW2 has something to do with it.
403.
by bumby 2y ago
No, the point was about the differences in risk that facilitate that work. I agree that SpaceX has done wonderful things, but disagree about the overly simplified explanation. For example, the commenter uses the word “waste”, probably becau
404.
by bumby 2y ago
It’s all there in the OP. But since reading comprehension seemed to take a hit due to the need for arguing, I’ll reiterate: His high-risk bets have largely been buoyed by government contracts SpaceX wouldn’t have survived without govt int
405.
by bumby 2y ago
Stop with the textbook whataboutism. Also show me when I say SpaceX was doing something unique or morally wrong. Was it when I said other contractors do the same? Was it when I pointed out Boeing’s shortcomings? How any when I said SpaceX h
406.
by bumby 2y ago
> quote the numbers you believe support your viewpoint. HN guidelines expect intellectual curiosity, not spoon feeding (maybe that's also a change in cultural norms). I've already clearly described the trend and given you mult
407.
by bumby 2y ago
You can register to get it through the "Access Data" tab. If you don't want to do that Google "HERI freshman survey". If that's still too much work, click on "Images" to see slides people have put tog
408.
by bumby 2y ago
> went to college to be better citizens of the world and not to get a job? It depends on the era. The data says they likely did decades ago, and less likely to share that same view now. Around the 1980s the proportions switched: prior,
409.
by bumby 2y ago
You still missed the point because you want to force this into a “SpaceX vs Everybody” narrative. I’ve already addressed the Boeing point. It still doesn’t negate the point about the industry needing government help/contracts to surviv
410.
by bumby 2y ago
I disagree. Because starting in the 1940s, there were large masses of less privileged people going to college on account of the GI Bill. They still had different views about college than we see currently (anecdotes not withstanding).
411.
by bumby 2y ago
It’s not entirely new (especially for the professional class like lawyers), but as the poster indicated, it’s relatively new for the middle class
412.
by bumby 2y ago
> vaguely recently I’d argue it’s not vague at all. In the US, I think it can be traced directly to the Morrill Land-Grant Acts, starting in 1862. I think that’s when college focus began to move from a liberal arts focus to a vocational
413.
by bumby 2y ago
The transactional nature hasn’t always been the same, though. It hasn’t always been that way, or at least the nature of the transaction has changed. Decades ago, surveys showed the predominant reason people went to college was “to develop a
414.
by bumby 2y ago
I agree Falcon 9 is showing itself to be reliable and low cost. We probably agree about the pork piece too You’re missing the point (which seems to be a common thread on this) so before I spend too much time constantly reiterating: 1) What
415.
by bumby 2y ago
No, the Commercial Crew Program is fundamentally different than the way NASA has previously done business. They are buying a ride, not a rocket. Because it’s a service contract, it’s much more hands-off. We agree the government supports sec
416.
by bumby 2y ago
Did Brazil start with a Byzantine kluge of private and public providers and intermediaries? Genuine question, not snark. I think the US would prefer a UHC if we were starting from a blank slate. The difficulty is mapping a path from what we
417.
by bumby 2y ago
> It's utterly inappropriate. C'mon, this is bordering on a disingenuous argument. You can't acknowledge the different between a service and a product. That's literally the novelty of the CCP. In general practice, yo
418.
by bumby 2y ago
You seem to be bent on have an altogether different discussion because you’re continuously missing the point. It’s exhausting, boring, and goes against HN guidelines about fostering a curious conversation.
419.
by bumby 2y ago
I agree it applies to other contractors. My point is that the success is tightly coupled to the willingness of taxpayers to fund the operations. You’re muddling points. I’m not saying the NASA contract was a subsidy. Tesla is a better examp
420.
by bumby 2y ago
You order an uber. You aren’t expected to make progressive payments so the driver can buy the car, get gas, etc. That’s the more appropriate analogy. As I said, CCP is a service contract, not a product. A house is a product so it even if th

More ›